Seattle PD Special Report On the M26 TASER (Pt. 2)

The M26 Taser - Year 1 Field Experience
The following discussion reviews incidents in which
tasers were deployed by SPD officers from January 1,
2001 through January 31, 2002. A total of 106
incidents are described and discussed (3).
When and Where Tasers were Used - Even though there
was to be a limited deployment of the M26 taser, the
overall strategy was to provide some coverage across
the city on a 24x7 basis. Table A reflects actual
taser uses distributed among three daily time periods.
As can be seen in Table A, taser deployments were
heaviest in the late afternoon to midnight time
period.
Table A - Taser Use by Time of Day SPD, Jan 2001 -
Jan 2002, N = 106
Time Period # of Deployments % of Deployments
0800 - 1600 hours 21 20%
1600 - 2400 hours 55 52%
2400 - 0800 hours 30 28%
When taser incidents are charted by precinct, the
South and West Precincts portray a more dominant use
of the device than do the North and East Precincts.
Table B shows the distribution of taser incidents by
Precinct.
Table B - Taser Use Incidents by Precinct SPD, Jan
2001 - Jan 2002, N = 106
Precinct # of Incidents % of Incidents
West 32 30%
North 19 18%
South 34 32%
East 20 19%
Other/out of city 1 1%
Closely related to the issue of geographic
distribution and coverage is the availability of
taser officers. This is especially significant in
light of the fact that the tasers are in limited
deployment across the city. To examine this issue,
taser incidents were classified according to how
often the taser officer was part of the first
response, part of a back-up unit, or specifically
requested by officers at the scene. Table C presents
this information. As can be seen, taser officers were
frequently among the officers first responding to an
incident.
Table C - Incidents by Taser Officer as First
Response, Back-up or Request SPD, Jan 2001 - Jan
2002, N = 106
Taser Officer Involved # of Incidents % of Incidents
Officer in first response 59 56%
Officer in back-up unit 38 36%
Officer specifically requested 9 8%
Types of Incidents Where Tasers Were Used - Table D
presents the types of incidents in which officers
used their tasers. In classifying these events, the
original type of call/incident to which officers
responded has been used, even though the situation
may have developed into something else. For example,
officers may have initiated a traffic stop for
reckless driving. Since this was the initiating event,
the incident would be classified as "traffic-related,"
even if the vehicle turned out to be stolen or drugs
were seized and arrests made for these crimes.
If one trend is evident in Table D it is that there
is no "typical" taser incident. Rather officers have
used the device in a variety of circumstances as
shown by the even distribution in the table.
Situations involving mentally ill/suicidal persons
and traffic-related events, however, edge out other
types of incidents to comprise the most frequent
categories of incidents where tasers were employed.
This reflects a primary interest of the Department's
Less Lethal Options Program, which is to provide
alternative tools to officers who are regularly
called upon to deal with persons in crisis, either
because of a mental illness or because of drug or
alcohol impairments, a frequent component of traffic
stops.
Table D - Initial Classification of Incidents Where
Tasers Were Used SPD, Jan 2001 - Jan 2002, N = 106
Type of Incident # of Incidents % of Incidents
Drug or Alcohol Related 17 16%
Fight/Disturbance Call 17 16%
Mental Illness/Suicide 21 19%
Traffic Related 20 19%
Violent Crime 14 13%
Other 17 16%
A few examples of these types of taser incidents will
illustrate the challenges they pose for officers.
Mental/Suicide Incident #1 - officers were called to
the scene of a man jumping in front of cars in an
apparent effort to be hit. As officers approached,
the man kept walking away and reaching into his
waistband as if going for a weapon. He also crouched
behind planters on the street as if retrieving
something. Officers drew their service weapons and
ordered him to stop and put his hands where they
could be seen. One officer called for a taser unit.
When it arrived, officers again ordered the man to
raise his hands. Instead he put them in his waistband
and withdrew his hand pointing it at officers
like a pistol. At this point the taser was applied,
striking the man and immobilizing him. He was taken
to Harborview Medical Center (HMC) for mental
evaluation. It was learned later that the man had
been released earlier in the day from the jail mental
ward and had tried (unsuccessfully) to reenter it.
Mental/Suicide Incident #2 - officers were called to
an apartment by a mental health case worker who was
concerned about a client who had threatened suicide
by slitting her wrists or jumping from the balcony of
her 4 th floor apartment. A Crisis Intervention Team
(CIT) trained officer was the first to respond,
followed by back-up units including a taser officer.
Officers obtained a key from the apartment manager
and the CIT officer attempted to contact the woman,
who by now had barricaded herself in the apartment.
As the door was opened and forced against the
furniture holding it, officers saw the subject bolt
for the balcony. Forcing themselves inside, the CIT
officer ran and tackled the woman as she reached the
balcony while the taser officer used the stun
mode of the taser to pacify her enough to be removed
from the danger zone of the balcony. She continued
to fight and struggle even when in restraints for
transport to Harborview Medical Center for mental
health evaluation.
Mental/Suicide Incident #3 - officers responded to a
call about a male mentally ill person screaming and
yelling at fellow apartment tenants. The apartment
manager indicated the subject was on the 9th floor.
Officers took the elevator to the 8th floor and used
the stairway to the 9th floor. On entering the
hallway, they observed the subject staring at the
elevator, waiting for it to open, with a fixed blade
knife in hand. The subject turned toward the officers
who told him to drop the weapon. Instead he advanced
toward them from about 15 feet away. While his
partner provided lethal cover, the other officer used
his taser, hitting the subject in the shoulder and
hip. This disabled the subject so he could be placed
in custody. While awaiting SFD transport, the subject
again became agitated and belligerent so a second
taser cycle was applied. The subject was transported
to Harborview Medical Center for mental evaluation.
Traffic-related Incident #1 - In the first taser use
in 2001, officers responded to a two-car, hit-and-run,
injury accident. The officer who spotted the vehicle
leaving the scene was able to stop it, but the
intoxicated driver was extremely belligerent and non-
compliant. A taser officer arrived as a back-up unit
and applied the taser as it became clear that the
subject was becoming more and more uncontrolled with
each attempt to gain his compliance. The taser struck
the subject in his arm, but it took three cycles of
the device to place the driver under arrest.
Traffic-related Incident #2 - officers attempted to
stop a car for reckless driving, when it sped away.
While following, officers learned that the car was
stolen. The driver stopped abruptly and fled on foot,
with officers also in foot pursuit. Once the subject
was contained in a fenced area, officers attempted to
get him to surrender, without success. Instead the
subject turned and ran toward officers refusing to
show his hands. One of the officers, who was equipped
with a taser, applied it. The subject continued to be
uncooperative as officers attempted to handcuff him,
so a second cycle of the taser was used. After that,
the subject was arrested without further incident.
The next three categories of taser incidents -
drug/alcohol, fight/disturbance, and violent crime
incidents - were roughly equal in number. These
tended to follow a predictable pattern in which
officer attempts to stop a suspect involved in a drug
sale, or to intervene in a disturbance, or arrest on
a warrant, resulted in either flight by the suspect,
aggression toward the officers, or both. Once
confronted by officers, typically after a pursuit,
the suspect resisted officer commands, often
violently. This was followed by repeated attempts to
gain suspect compliance and finally to bring him/her
under control. The taser often proved to be the most
effective of the control measures employed. A few
examples follow.
Violent Crime Incident - officers attempted to arrest
a subject on a felony rape warrant. During a foot
chase, the subject drew a spring-loaded knife from
his clothing so violently that it was projected from
his hand. During the pursuit, the taser was applied,
hitting the subject as he was running. It brought him
to the ground, but he still resisted as he was being
arrested. After he was subdued, a second knife was
recovered.
Fight/Disturbance Incident - officers responded to a
call about a fight. On arrival, two large subjects
were observed to be brawling, surrounded by a large
group of on-lookers. As the two officers attempted
to intervene, one subject pushed away from officers,
took a fighting stance with balled fists, shouted
obscenities, and stepped toward officers. The crowd
also started to react toward the officers. One of
the officers had a taser and deployed it on the
subject at the very moment that the other combatant
reached around to restrain him from assaulting the
officers. Each of the taser prongs hit one of the
subjects, one in a finger and one in the back.
Because their arms were wrapped together, both
subjects were affected. After they were taken into
custody, it was evident that both were very
intoxicated. As things calmed down, the more
aggressive subject agreed that officers had done the
right thing; the other was released to a family
member.
"Other" Category Incident - The "other" category of
taser events was generally comprised of property
crimes, on-view loitering or harassment incidents,
probation or warrant violation cases. An example of
this type of incident involved a "send police" call
to 911, made by a woman caller who indicated that
someone was trying to break into her home. Upon
arrival, the officers observed the suspect attempting
to restrain a woman on a couch. She was screaming for
help. The officers entered and told the subject to
get on the floor. He complied but kept trying to
reach under the couch for something. Thinking the
subject was trying to reach for a weapon, the taser
was applied. He became compliant and was taken into
custody. He was booked for a domestic violence-
related burglary. The woman was his estranged wife.
Characteristics of Taser Subjects - Taser incidents
were reviewed to determine the gender, age, and race
of subjects on whom tasers were used. Males
significantly outnumber females as taser subjects,
with males comprising 94% of subjects. The age
distribution of taser subjects is close to a bell
curve, with just over two-thirds of the subjects
between the ages of 21 and 40, and the balance split
almost evenly between the 20 and under age group and
the over 40 age group. Table E presents the age
distribution of taser subjects.
Table E - Age Distribution of Taser Subjects
SPD, Jan 2001 - Jan 2002, N = 106
Age Category # of Subjects % of Subjects
20 years old and younger 16 15%
21-25 years old 20 19%
26-30 years old 17 16%
31-35 years old 15 14%
36-40 years old 19 18%
Over 40 years of age 19 18%
Taser incidents were also classified by the race of
the subject on whom the taser was used. These data
are presented in Table F. About half of the taser
subjects were Caucasians, with African Americans
comprising the next largest group. Taser incidents
were also reviewed and classified according to the
degree and type of impairment that subjects exhibited
to officers. Table G presents information on the
number of incidents and types of impairments shown by
taser subjects.
Table F - Distribution of Taser Subjects by Race
SPD. Jan 2001 - Jan 2002, N =106
Race of Taser Subject # of Subjects % of Subjects
Caucasian 52 49%
African American 44 42%
Asian/Pacific Islander 6 6%
Other 4 4%
Table G - Numbers and Types of Impairment of Taser
Subjects SPD, Jan 2001 - Jan 2002, N = 106
Taser Subject Impaired # of Subjects % of Subjects
Alcohol impaired 24 22%
Chemical/drug impaired 11 10%
Drug & alcohol impaired 4 4%
Mental illness/delusional 24 22%
No apparent impairment 43 41%
Nearly sixty percent of the incidents involved
subjects that were impaired to one degree or another,
often seriously. As indicated, persons suffering
from delusions or mental illness and those who were
alcohol-impaired comprised the largest groups of
impaired persons confronted by officers. Impairment
resulting from other types of substance abuse
appeared in another 14% of the incidents.
A notable characteristic of taser subjects was the
degree to which they were armed. A quarter of taser
subjects (26 subjects) were armed, most often with
knives (in 11 cases). Sixteen (62%) of the armed
subjects were impaired, with ten of the sixteen cases
involving the mentally ill or delusional persons.
What is surprising about the number of taser
incidents involving armed subjects is the fact that
officers so often chose to use a less lethal option
when confronting subjects who not only were armed,
but who also appeared determined, in a number of
cases, to assault or harm officers.
How Tasers Were Used and the Results Obtained - In
about 60% of the taser incidents, the dart projectile
mode of the M26 Taser was used. The stun mode of the
device was used 27% of the time; and both systems
were used in just under 12% of cases. Use of the dual
system modes occurred when subjects became newly
resistant after having been subdued, or when the dart
projectiles failed to reach the subject or became
dislodged during a struggle.
Taser Performance - Because of the varied
circumstances and conditions in which tasers were
used, the Department captured performance data in
three ways. First, each taser incident was reviewed
to see if there had been a verified contact of the
subject with the taser. Often, a taser might be
described by observing officers as "not working", but
the taser officer indicated that the prongs had not
reached the subject, or only one had hit the mark, or
extra layers of clothing had prevented the darts from
making contact. Of the 106 cases studied, verified
taser contact in either stun or dart mode was
confirmed in 91 cases or 86% of the time.
Next, the Department looked at the effect of the
taser when contact was made. Among the 91 cases
where there had been verified contact, 95% reported
either a disabling, or partially disabling, effect on
the subject. Finally, the Department reviewed taser
deployments to see whether the device either brought
the subject under control or led to the resolution of
the incident. In 85% of all taser incidents (91 of
106 cases), the device was credited with helping to
resolve the situation. In incidents where there was
verified contact with the taser, the rate of success
was 92% (in 84 of 91 cases) in controlling the
subject or bringing the situation to resolution.
Subject and Officer Injury - Taser incidents were
also reviewed to determine the extent of subject and
officer injuries that occurred when tasers were used.
National studies have consistently found that uses of
force are more likely during officer interactions
with persons who are mentally ill or under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. They have also found
that uses of force often result in injuries to both
officers and subjects. These studies have placed the
rate of officer injuries at 10% in general use of
force situations and as high as 30-40% in incidents
involving mentally ill and impaired subjects.
Injuries to subjects occur nationally at a rate of
38% in general use of force incidents, with bruises
or abrasions being the most common injuries sustained.
More serious injuries, such as broken bones, were
reported in about 1.5% of use of force incidents
studied. (4)
In light of these statistics, the reported injury
rate for both officers and subjects in the taser
incidents during the first year of implementation
was low. In more than two-thirds of the incidents
(68%), subjects sustained either no injury or only
puncture abrasions from the taser darts. Injuries
subsequent to the taser deployment were reported in
13% of incidents. Generally, these injuries occurred
as subjects fell to the ground after having been "hit"
with taser darts. In 19% of the incidents, subject
injuries occurred prior to police arrival, prior to
taser deployment, or were self-inflicted. No subject
injuries were major, and there were no injuries
attributed directly to the taser itself.
There were no officer injuries in eighty-seven (82%)
of the incidents studied. In 13% of the incidents,
officers sustained injuries prior to the taser being
applied. In only 5% of the incidents were there
officer injuries after taser deployment or directly
related to its use. In all cases, the injuries to
officers were minor. Because of the high proportion
of taser subjects who were impaired, these relatively
low rates of reported officer injuries are very
encouraging. This helps to meet another key objective
of the Department's Less Lethal Options Program,
which is to provide options that officers can deploy
safely.
The low injury rate associated with the taser is one
of its biggest selling points for officers. Taser
officers have frequently reported to trainers how
much they appreciate having a tool at their disposal
that can resolve incidents "without anyone getting
hurt".
Lessons from Year One of Taser Implementation
With the benefit of just over a year of operational
experience with the M-26 Taser, it is useful to
reflect on the lessons the Department has learned.
Four particular insights are important to note.
1. Choice of the Taser - While the M-26 had a lot to
recommend it when less lethal options were first
evaluated, the Department could predict neither the
level of officer acceptance it would receive, nor its
applicability to the situations routinely faced by
officers. Also unknown was the degree to which the
taser would prove useful in the types of incidents
the Less Lethal Options Program was designed to
address. By all accounts, the taser appears to have
been the right choice. Officer acceptance has been
high and taser officers have clearly incorporated the
device into their daily response routines. In
addition, the number of reported taser incidents
involving mentally ill and otherwise impaired persons
suggests that the device is providing an alternative
in the types of situations envisioned by the Less
Lethal Options Program. Finally, in light of the low
rate of injury reported in taser incidents, the
device has proven to be a less lethal option that
officers can safely use to defuse situations, while
offering minimal risk to subjects or themselves.
2. Phased deployment - Although it would have been
tempting to deploy all of the tasers as soon as
possible, the Department was deliberate and measured
in its deployment, heeding the admonition of other
agencies not to deploy beyond true training capacity.
It was imperative to monitor taser uses carefully and
to ensure that field experience was used to inform
and refresh training efforts. The phased approach
also helped the Department ensure that its 24x7 and
citywide coverage objectives were being achieved.
3. Expectations of the taser must be adjusted to fit
with reality - Because the taser has shown itself
beneficial in a variety of incidents, there is a
tendency (both internally and externally) to view it
as a panacea. This is far from the truth. To begin
with, the device has some very real operational
limitations that must be understood and appreciated.
To work best, the taser batteries must be at full
strength, both darts should make contact, and the
wires should remain intact. Absent all these
conditions, the desired effect may not be obtained.
Moreover, deploying the taser on highly impaired
subjects may not offer the best opportunity to
achieve optimal operational conditions. In addition,
while the M-26 provides greater standoff distance for
officers than did earlier tasers, the 6-21 foot range
of the device is still perilously close, especially
when confronting persons who are armed. In this
regard, the number of armed subjects on whom officers
used the taser this first year should be viewed,
perhaps, as a cautionary note and one to be carefully
watched.
For the public's part, the reality is that the taser
does not signal the end of police shootings. Instead,
officers will still need to employ lethal force when
situations so warrant. For officers' part, the
reality is that while the taser does some things
really well, it is not the answer in all cases. There
are some uses for which the taser is simply
inappropriate; and it cannot overcome its inherent
limitations in field applications. Ongoing monitoring
and tracking of field uses will continue to be the
best way to ensure that taser officers and their
peers are kept apprised of what works and what
doesn't.
4. The holes in the "safety net" grow wider - A
review of the first year's taser incidents suggests
that the explicit goal to provide first responding
officers with alternatives to deadly force when
dealing with persons in crisis has been met. That
same review, however, serves to illustrate just how
difficult and problematic these circumstances are.
Among the sample of taser incidents studied were
those where officers were called to deal with people
completely out of control and without any means of
either physical or emotional support. Other cases
involved providing assistance to mental health
professionals and other caregivers being abused or
assaulted by those they were trying to assist. In
still others, officers were asked to confront
desperate or despondent persons for whom all other
help had fallen short.
Clearly, the "safety net" for the mentally ill, and
for those ravaged by substance abuse, is badly frayed.
Even those who are receiving services appear to need
more or different assistance than the system can
provide; and with the current pressures on public
sector budgets at all levels, it is likely that the
situation will continue to deteriorate. This will
place more and more officers into confrontations with
persons whose judgments and actions are wildly
unpredictable and who, more often than not, appear to
represent armed threats. Though such persons may be
more irrational than intentional, their erratic
behaviors pose dangers to officers and to the public
that are nearly impossible to assess accurately and
counter successfully. That officers have been able
to do so under many circumstances in the past, does
not mean that they will continue to prevail, no
matter what options they have at their disposal.
[Note: The use of force continuum used as a training
tool by the Seattle Police Department, followed here
in the form of a sophisticated chart.
Formating and editing changes were made to display it
in plain text as a progression of acts with responses.
The progression starts with non verbal behavior and
ends with agravated agressive action and response.
The changes were also made to help in understanding
the concept of: a use of force continuum. It should
not be construed to be or used as a representation
of the Seattle Police Department's training tool.
The PDF file noted at the start of this presentation,
contains the unaltered document. Its URL is:
http://www.cityofseattle.net/police/Publications/
Special/M26Taser.PDF]
USE OF FORCE GUIDELINE
SUSPECT'S GOAL: DISRUPT/ESCAPE/ASSAULT
OFFICER'S GOAL: CONTROL/IMPEDE/STOP
- - - - - - - - - -
PRESENCE/RESPONSE BY OFFICER
Officer is readily identified by clothing, markings,
equipment, or verbal announcment.
NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR BY SUSPECT
Suspect exhibits non-verbal body language such as
glaring or conspicuous ignoring or assumes a body
position conducive to attack or flight indicating
noncompliance.
- - - - - - - - - -
VERBAL INTERACTION BY OFFICER
Dialogue, persuasion, advice, or a lawful order is
given to suspect(s).
VERBAL RESISTANCE BY SUSPECT
Suspect makes threats or statements that indicate
non compliance with an officer's lawful request.
- - - - - - - - - -
PASSIVE RESISTANCE BY SUSPECT
Suspet "goes limp" and obstructs the officer's
efforts at control, through body weight, size, or
flexibility.
TOUCH CONTROL BY OFFICER
Control is guiding, escorting, or out-muscling a
suspect that exhibits passive resistance.
- - - - - - - - - -
ACTIVE/EGRESSIVE RESISTANCE BY SUSPECT
Suspect physically tenses his or her muscles
and/or locks their arms and legs using resistive
tension to avoid being controlled by the officer.
Suspect attempts to escape an officer's efforts at
control by pulling away from the officer's attempts
at control or by running from the officer.
LEVEL 1 TACTICAL RESPONSE BY OFFICER
Officer attempts to gain control with pain compliance
applied by use of distractions, counter-joint holds,
hair control holds, oleoresin capsicum, or the M26
Taser (Touch).
- - - - - - - - - -
AGGRESSIVE ACTION BY SUSPECT
The suspect attacks/attempts to injure the officer in
the process of resisting or escaping.
LEVEL 2 TACTICAL RESPONSE BY OFFICER
Officer uses strikes with knees, kicks, punches, and
elbows; the use of impact weapons (baton, flashlight,
radio etc.) against primary and secondary targets;
chemical agents in projectile forms and M26 Taser
(Darts) in response to suspect's actions.
- - - - - - - - - -
AGGRAVATED AGGRESSIVE ACTION BY SUSPECT
Suspect has pre-planned an attack or is implementing
weapons and/or tactics that pose a threat of serious
physical harm or death to the officer or others.
LEVEL 3 TACTICAL RESPONSE BY OFFICER
Officer uses deadly force in the form of neck holds,
tertiary targets with impact weapons, firearms, etc.
- - - - - - - - - -
Footnotes:
(1) = Including the taser in the use of force
reporting system results in supervisory review of
each taser application, up through the chain of
command.
(2) = The guidelines call for use of the taser's
dataport feature to review application history when a
complaint is received or there is information
alleging improper use. Dataport downloads also occur
during the annual re-qualification and
re-certification required of each taser officer.
During the study period, no taser-related complaints
were received.
(3) = Not included in this discussion are two
incidents where tasers were used at some point, but
which resulted in fatal shootings of subjects by
police officers. This is because these incidents are
still under Department review and investigation.
(4) = See Kenneth Adams, "What We Know About Police
Use of Force," and Mark A. Henriquez, "IACP National
Database Project on Police Use of Force," in Use of
Force by Police, Overview of National and Local Data,
Washington, DC: NIJ, October 1999.
End of presentation....